John McCain's campaign is doing what it can to paint criticisms or questions about GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin as unfair smears or attacks.

They don't want anything to counter the story of the hockey-mom-turned-governor who said she rejected federal dollars for a "bridge to nowhere."

One of the best ways to do that is to keep Palin away from reporters who want to ask questions about her record or stances on issues.

The campaign is mostly shielding Palin from the media so far, except for ABC News' Charles Gibson, who has been granted access.

Several news organizations have reported that Palin initially supported the so-called bridge to nowhere.

Or to put it in John Kerry parlance, she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.

The McCain campaign has employed a "truth squad" to counter any negatives about Palin.

Former Massachusetts governor Jane Swift described the squad this way in an announcement of its creation:

"Gov. Palin's commitment to reform is well-known but there are those who would seek to distort that record with vile rumors and smears against her, her husband, her children and her friends," Swift said. "We will not allow those on the left and in the media to smear a woman who has always served her constituents with honor."

Many pundits felt the defense of Palin turned ludicrous last week when the McCain campaign claimed Democrat Barack Obama's comment about not being able to put lipstick on a pig was a sexist comment.

Obama said he had been referring to McCain's economic policies, but the McCain campaign took it as a slam on Palin.

The media has taken the biggest brunt of the McCain campaign's anger. They're apparently withholding access to Palin because they believe the media has treated her unfairly.

It's an old Republican tactic to blame the press, one that always gets cheers from a conservative base that already looks at the media with skepticism.

But the media would be to blame if it let down the American people by not trying to ask the tough questions about Palin and go beyond the story the campaign wants to feed reporters and voters.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden's been through the type of vetting that comes with running a national campaign - twice. As he began his most recent campaign ahead of the Iowa caucuses, I remember talking to him at length about the plagiarism charges that undid his presidential campaign in the 1988 cycle.

The country's heard plenty about Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois State Senate, his dealings with businessman Tony Rezko and the fact that he's used drugs.

Even McCain himself has withstood the scrutiny of two presidential campaigns.

So why should Sarah Palin be off-limits?

If someone would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, the public has a right to an insight of how that person would govern, Palin included.

If Palin won't submit to a scrutiny of her record, it's the American voter who suffers the consequences the most. The clock's ticking.

With less than two months to go before the election and a number of questions about her still unanswered, voters should be able to learn more about the enigmatic Sarah Palin.